Zombie Daily Mail Article On MMR
Here’s something that’s puzzling me: a Daily Mail article from several years ago is showing on a Google search for wakefield mmr daily mail as being just two hours old.
This article keeps being brought up for discussion in the various corners of the internet where I tend to hang out. Curiously, the article has no publication date. It was discussed on JREF and other forums in 2010 (including the Skeptic forum). In January 2011, Liz Ditz described this as “the article that won’t die”. So, how do we kill this zombie article? And how and why is it being reanimated?
I don’t know how to find out how and why it is being brought back to life, so I started by emailing the Daily Mail themselves to see if they could shed any light on it:
How come your shite, scaremongering article “Scientists fear MMR link to autism” is showing on google as being two hours old, when it’s actually several years old?
The reason I’m so curious is that it’s been brought up for discussion yet again on another skeptic forum – prompting a fisking from JQH (stop giggling at the back – I said fisking).
I’m not sure how to kill this zombie, but in the meantime I will be linking to a Bad Science article using the keywords “wakefield mmr daily mail“. Perhaps that will help?
Update, 21:19, 5/10/2011:
Hat-tip to Konomios for the following…
List of articles published on the same day: I clicked on five articles at random and they were all datestamped.
Check out how many articles on Wakefield and vaccination carry no datestamp: linky. I clicked on four – MMR – The Truth, The unheeded warnings, MMR vaccine side-effects ‘not fully tested’, and MMR doctors disown jab study – none were datestamped.
Curious…
[Hat-tip also to Little Waster for getting all het up about the lack of datestamping. His irritation helped to motivate me to write this.]
Update, 21:38, 5/10/2011:
I’ve sent another email…
Your other articles from the same day appear to be datestamped OK. Other articles on Wakefield (relevant to MMR) appear not to be. Do you have any comment on this?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wakefield+site:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk+-%22Last+updated%22
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/sitemaparchive/day_20060528.html
Update, 16:16, 7/10/2011
(1) I’ve added some news (including the Mail’s reply) as comments. Further updates will appear in the comments section below.
(2) Another tip of the hat – this time to Josephine Jones.
Update, 16:25, 14/7/12
Here’s a reference to “new evidence” of a link between MMR and autism in a discussion on Amazon: link (as the posts in this discussion have date stamps, I can see that this is from 8th July 2011 – I thought I should point out that this is not news, it is in fact a year old). It was also linked to on Phoenix Rising in 2010, but the PR thread has disappeared/been archived/whatever.
Here’s the Daily Mail article it’s copied and pasted from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-132515/New-evidence-shows-MMR-link-autism.html (without attribution). It seems to be from 9th August 2002: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sitemap-articles-day~2002-08-09.xml and it looks like it hasn’t been modified since then. But it has no date stamp and it’s the first result on Google for mmr autism daily mail: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mmr+autism+daily+mail&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
There’s also this on the first page of results for that Google search: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-123482/New-MMR-link-autism.html. I expect date stamps will soon be added to these two articles. As the Mail told me in October last year:
We add the publication dates whenever these instances are flagged up to avoid confusion, as has clearly happened in this case.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Update, 14:35, 17/7/12
I emailed the Mail on the evening of Friday 13th July and they have not responded to my email or added date stamps to the articles I flagged up.
Update, 18:04, 24/8/12
Six weeks later… no response from the Daily Mail to my emails and no publication dates added to the articles. Either the Daily Mail did not receive my emails or they weren’t being strictly truthful when they wrote “we add the publication dates whenever these instances are flagged up” in their email to me last October.
Mamey Jamey (@fiatpanda) said,
October 5, 2011 at 7:04 pm
The problem with the really big turds is that you can never quite flush them away. They keep floating back to the top.
I know this doesn’t really help – I just wanted to post a poo analogy.
jdc325 said,
October 5, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Thanks – I welcome your Daily Mail/poo analogies. Feel free to post again if you have more up your sleeve.
martin said,
October 5, 2011 at 7:54 pm
mmmm sleeve turds.
one day i too will be writing articles that are just so classical that they will be popular for ever and I shall be rich and famous and women will – o wait, sorry, wrong dram
Alan Henness (@zeno001) said,
October 5, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Hey! But this blog post appears as the 13th hit on a clean Google search (ie in an incognito browser window) for “wakefield mmr daily mail”! Congratulations!
jdc325 said,
October 5, 2011 at 9:33 pm
I’ve taken a screengrab of the page as it stands (i.e., without a datestamp) and am now monitoring the page on changedetection. I’ll let you know if it changes and I’ll be sure to post an update if the Mail reply to my emails.
jdc325 said,
October 5, 2011 at 9:40 pm
@martin – surely that’s a dream everyone has?
@Alan – heh, thanks. Time for me to do some vanity googling now I think.
jdc325 said,
October 5, 2011 at 9:42 pm
One of the first links on google for those keywords is this from Enemies of Reason: link. It includes this brazen bit of bullshit from Paul Dacre:
O RLY?
jdc325 said,
October 6, 2011 at 4:52 pm
I’ve complained to the PCC. If the Fail want me to think that the article is new, then I shall react as if it is.
The PCC ask for an explanation of how the code has been breached:
They also ask which clause(s) of the code you are complaining under:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html
notso worried said,
October 7, 2011 at 11:39 am
You could always worry less about this and just go outside in the sunshine rather than festering over something so trivial!
jdc325 said,
October 7, 2011 at 1:40 pm
@notso worried
Obvious troll is obvious.
jdc325 said,
October 7, 2011 at 1:41 pm
I waited almost two days for the Mail to respond to my emails, but heard nothing. I emailed them for a third time, mentioning that I’d complained to the PCC, and they replied within four minutes. There’s probably a lesson here…
jdc325 said,
October 7, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Here’s the Mail’s response. They’ve got a couple of things wrong. I’m now considering how to reply…
I’m also going to proceed with my PCC complaint if the PCC will allow me to.
jdc325 said,
October 7, 2011 at 2:47 pm
I’ve replied:
Mike D said,
October 7, 2011 at 11:22 pm
They’ve fixed it!
Now it shows as . . . 16 hours old.
jdc325 said,
October 8, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Heh, yeah – it’s not ideal but there has been some small progress.
The article still shows as being recent on a google search (“7 hours ago”, as I write this), but if you click through it does now show a datestamp between the headline and the main body: 28/05/2006. So the Mail / MoS have now taken some action. I’ve also put in a complaint to the PCC about the content of the article being misleading. It was only when I made my PCC complaint and informed the Mail of this that the datestamp was added, so the lesson I’ve taken from this is to complain to the PCC first and then contact the Mail.
PCC Upholds Daily Mail’s Right To Distort « Stuff And Nonsense said,
November 18, 2011 at 5:34 pm
[…] I wrote about the zombie Daily Mail article on MMR. I made a complaint to the PCC about the article in question, and have now received notice of their […]
Calm down jcd said,
April 28, 2012 at 11:21 pm
I have heard first hand some unpleasant side effects from mmr jabs. I think good on the daily mail for giving another side of the story. If theres anything dodgy I’d like to know! And jdc there are 2 sides to every story, your a wee bit bigoted I thibk!
Cybertiger said,
April 29, 2012 at 6:33 am
@Calm down jcd
There is really nothing wee about bigoted turds like jcd523 … or that huge ‘Alan Henness’ bigot.
jdc325 said,
April 29, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Hello C / Calm down jcd,
“I have heard first hand some unpleasant side effects from mmr jabs.”
Really? First hand hearsay? Forgive me if I find that less impressive than the numerous large, carefully conducted studies into the safety of MMR. There are some minor side effects of the vaccine and some more serious, but rare side effects. The serious side effects of the vaccine are far rarer than the serious complications of the diseases it protects against.
Cybertiger said,
April 29, 2012 at 2:54 pm
More tedious cobblers from jcd352! Give me strength ….
jdc325 said,
April 29, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Perhaps rather than simply stating your position, you might like to explain it. And, where relevant, supply evidence to support it?
Otherwise, why should anyone listen to you Cybertiger?
Earnest said,
October 20, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Good post. I learn something new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon everyday.
It’s always interesting to read through articles from other authors and use something from their sites.
Harpocrates Speaks: Matthew Mientka, MMR, Autism and Lazy Journalism said,
January 2, 2014 at 5:26 pm
[…] on September 8, 2002. Okay. Maybe Mr. Mientka didn't know this about the Mail. Yeah others have pointed out this habit of the Fail Mail, but, I was still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. After […]